AZAFR v Minister for Immigration
[2015] FCCA 2234
•18 August 2015
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| AZAFR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2015] FCCA 2234 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Application for judicial review – application of 48A – Court bound by SZRWA v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 293. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.48A Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) |
| SZRWA v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 293 |
| Applicant: | AZAFR |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| File Number: | ADG 453 of 2014 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Harland |
| Date of Last Submission: | 4 August 2015 |
| Delivered at: | Adelaide |
| Delivered on: | 18 August 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Paul Charman |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Hamdan Lawyers |
| Solicitor for the Respondent: | Paul d’Assumpcao |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The application for judicial review filed on 4 December 2014 is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $2,500.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE |
ADG 453 of 2014
| AZAFR |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant lodged an application for a protection visa on 9 December 2008. His application was refused on 24 October 2010.
The applicant lodged a further application for a protection visa on 28 October 2014. The Minister rejected the further application as being invalid pursuant to s.48A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant seeks to review that decision.
The applicant argues that his original application was lodged before the introduction of the complementary protection criterion which was introduced on 24 March 2012 and is set out in section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.
Section 48A was amended on 28 May 2014. In his written submissions he the applicant’s counsel conceded that this Court “may consider it bound by the decision of Gleeson J in SZRWA v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 293” (SZRWA).
The respondent submits that this Court is bound by that decision and must dismiss the application for review.
Counsel for both parties sought that the matter be dealt with in chambers without the necessity for oral submissions. That was sensible given the circumstances.
The facts in this case cannot be distinguished from SZRWA and I am bound by that decision.
I will dismiss the application. The Minister seeks costs in the sum of $2,500. Costs generally follow the event in this jurisdiction. The costs sought are less than the costs allowed for in Part 3, Schedule 1 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), but as there was no oral hearing and the written submissions were brief this is appropriate.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Harland
Associate:
Date: 18 August 2015
0
1
3